Ihíio, Itlátol - An Offscreen Aztec Map Project

[Ols]

It would make sense, then, that they be differentiated in one way or another. Having different powers is meaningless if they are identical.

Of course. The diplomatic interactions with each should be fairly different. The Incas should be less aggressive by default and not demand human captives to sacrifice. On the other hand they could be a lot stronger if they do invade. Since they're essentially further away it should be a great challenge to contact them, but the rewards should be significant. That's why I think guns - plus potentially other anachronistic technology - should be available.

One Inca option could be "Pacify Mesoamerica", which costs an enormous amount of grace. Doing so cripples the Aztecs and forces them to withdraw most of their troops back to the Americas. There could be a number of risks involved.

 

[spendabuck]

Another way to differentiate would be to add different religions; for example, you could only send human sacrifices to the Emperor if he's a follower of a religion which allows it (Aztec religion, Norse if we go with the possibility of a Vinlandic Emperor, probably some others), so an Inca Emperor wouldn't be able to receive sacrifices (unless, of course, he follows Aztec/Norse paganism).

You'd probably also be able to do a lot of interesting things regarding the Aztec invasion. For example, while the main invasion would still occur, there'd also be Aztec 'conquistadors' (adventurers, essentially, but maybe with a different trait) trying to found their own realms in Europe. There could also be refugees from the New World after the Aztec conquests who ask to stay in your court (possibly even requesting land). A feature I think would be interesting would be melting pot events occurring between New World and European cultures, with new cultures emerging for different combinations of cultures (for example, there could be a culture that's a mix between Mesoamerican and Iberian cultures).

Going back to the topic of religion, I think that it's a pretty interesting issue, in that there's some debate in whether or not the Aztecs should easily be converting to Old World religions. The Spanish conquest of the New World is often cited, as the Spaniards brought their own religion into the New World as opposed to adopting the gods of the Aztecs upon arrival. This argument has a lot of merit, as it also doesn't really make much sense that the Aztecs were able to conquer a massive empire in the New World yet they didn't have time to consolidate their religion - I personally think a decision like 'Becoming the Saoshyant' or 'Restoring the Jewish High Priesthood' should be used for the Aztecs, with it having the Aztecs found a head priest for the newly conquered lands in Europe - and that they wouldn't just abandon their gods for some new god they encountered in Europe who died on a cross. However, on the other hand, you can also draw parallels between the Aztecs and the Mongols, as they're both large empires which invade the kingdoms of Europe and the Middle East during the 1200s-1300s. Of course, unlike the Spanish, the Mongols were more than open to adopting the religions of their new subjects, with many of the Mongols converting to Christianity, Buddhism, and especially Islam. This argument also has a lot of merit, as after spending many years in a foreign land, the descendants of the original settlers would probably have forgotten about their homelands in the New World, and would be drawn to the religions which still retain strong institutions throughout Europe.

A good solution to this issue would be to put the New World and Old World religions in a situation where there's a back-and-forth between the two. On the one hand, various Aztec lords/conquistadors will try to spread the word of their gods to the masses of Europe, slaughtering any who oppose them, while on the other, there will be other rulers who have no opposition to embracing the religions of the newly conquered far eastern lands - Christianity, Islam, possibly even Judaism - in order to earn legitimacy among the local populace. This would create a scenario where a variety of different faiths are vying for control in Western Europe, and could produce interesting results during gameplay.

 

[xXConquerorXx]

Of course. The diplomatic interactions with each should be fairly different. The Incas should be less aggressive by default and not demand human captives to sacrifice. On the other hand they could be a lot stronger if they do invade. Since they're essentially further away it should be a great challenge to contact them, but the rewards should be significant. That's why I think guns - plus potentially other anachronistic technology - should be available.

One Inca option could be "Pacify Mesoamerica", which costs an enormous amount of grace. Doing so cripples the Aztecs and forces them to withdraw most of their troops back to the Americas. There could be a number of risks involved.

I think only the Aztecs/Mesoamericans should be an off-map power, since the Europeans still don't have access to Caravels and later ships, meaning the only route is via-Vinland. These interactions with the other states could better be handled by events maybe, since they're so far away it would be troublesome for official negotiations. Maybe using the "Take Hostile Action" button and having an option to "Negotiate with rivals", which would set the event chain for finding rival powers in the Americas to fight the invaders in their homelands.

 

[Ols]

I think only the Aztecs/Mesoamericans should be an off-map power, since the Europeans still don't have access to Caravels and later ships, meaning the only route is via-Vinland. These interactions with the other states could better be handled by events maybe, since they're so far away it would be troublesome for official negotiations. Maybe using the "Take Hostile Action" button and having an option to "Negotiate with rivals", which would set the event chain for finding rival powers in the Americas to fight the invaders in their homelands.

The Incas could be enabled later if you gain access to Aztec vessels via an event. There could be many games where the Incas never become available at all. I don't like the idea of an Inca ruling Mesoamerica directly because the distances involves are extreme. Tawatinsuyu was already extremely large in reality and I don't think they'd have the ability to rule over such a large area unless they either had very good ships themselves. I don't think you could manage an empire with the isthmus of Panama as a bottleneck either.

The negotiate with rivals option is possible, but I think one of the outcomes should be to enable a completely new Empire. Otherwise you're packing a massive web of event and decisions into a single button click with very little control of what's going on.

 

[Keizer Harm]

I gotta love how this contentious DLC gets its own mod to expand upon it Looking forward to seeing this in action!

 

[SBolshevik]

Might I suggest that, if you add the Inca, you also add them as a possible invasion force into India? The premise would be that the Polynesian sailors of the Pacific would have reached the continent of South America, and as a result the Inca Empire would adopt their sailing techniques and start crossing the ocean all the way to the Malay Archipelago and eventually India.

 

[Ols]

Might I suggest that, if you add the Inca, you also add them as a possible invasion force into India? The premise would be that the Polynesian sailors of the Pacific would have reached the continent of South America, and as a result the Inca Empire would adopt their sailing techniques and start crossing the ocean all the way to the Malay Archipelago and eventually India.

That's quite an interesting idea, yes.

 

[Keizer Harm]

Tonalquizayampa may be an appropriate word for the Western Protectorate equivalent. It means "the point where the sun rises". I tried looking up Nahuatl morphology to try to put -land behind it, but it's a mess - we may need a native to do that confidently.

 

[Captain Frakas]

May I suggest a "surprise!" option for Aztec invasion game rule ? With this option, the Aztec invasion might or might not happen. The chance is very very low, so, even if it wouldn't happen in most parties, it might still happen in the current one.

 

[Brightgalrs]

Tonalquizayampa may be an appropriate word for the Western Protectorate equivalent. It means "the point where the sun rises". I tried looking up Nahuatl morphology to try to put -land behind it, but it's a mess - we may need a native to do that confidently.

No need to add a "land" morpheme, the "-yam" (underlying: "yan") serves as a locative morpheme already. What I think needs to be changed is the "-pa", which when added to a locative makes it vague or unreachable. So remove that if it's a definite place and you get "Tōnalquīzayān".

 

[Planita]

Is this still alive?

 

[famaouz]

Is this still alive?

It seems dead, but Thure is still active though.

 

[Thure]

Yeah. It's not very active currently. I don't have much time for modding currently. But I still would like to do work on it.

 

[Andrelvis]

Yeah. It's not very active currently. I don't have much time for modding currently. But I still would like to do work on it.

I have a bit of research done on the Aztecs, which I've written into character histories and such. Let me know if you need help

 

[black_imperator]

Not sure how far Thure is into this, but i've started a basic implementation of this based on the remarks i made some time ago. It's very barebones and slightly glitchy at the moment, and i'm gonna fill it with at least a couple of interactions before any thought about release.

Note that I do not know much about aztec history and culture so i'll be interested in hearing about that. In particular, about the proper names for the emperor, the empire, the governor and the protectorate for now.

If anyone can provide some artwork to replace the various part of the chinese-themed offmap window, that would also be helpful.

 

[Keizer Harm]

the proper names for the emperor

Huehuetlatoani. The Aztec Empire was really three states in an alliance, with a bunch of tributes. The kings of each of those states called themselves Huetlaoni. However, one of those states, Tenochtitlan, began elevating themselves over the rest, and they called their kings Huehuetlatoani. Tenochtitlan was specifically mentioned in events as the capital of the Aztecs, so this has evidently continued (happened earlier?) in the CK2-timeline.

the empire

Excan Tlahtoloyan. Literally means "Triple Alliance". One might argue that the CK2-Aztecs were much more centralised around Tenochtitlan, and a name reflecting that might be more appropriate, but I don't speak Nahuatl so Excan Tlahtoloyan will do for now.

the governor

Cuauhtlatoani. The historic title for the military governor of a conquered city-state. (meaning "he who speaks like the eagle")

the protectorate

As per @Brightgalrs: Tonalquizayan, meaning "the land/place where the sun rises"

 

[Bunton]

I'm willing to help out if you guys need more help - I have a limited knowledge of Nahuatl and Nahua culture.

"Cemanahuac" may work as a name for the empire - it's the Nahuatl term the Aztecs used for the known/current world or Mesoamerica (referring to it being bounded on two sides by water). "Aztec Empire" may also be suitable - while not an endonym, it's the historical term for that empire.

 

[moscal]

Terminology is the minor problem. In any moment this can be reworked. Also chinese empire, protectorates etc. aren't transliteration into latin letters, but pure english terms.

Most important are events, decisions, mechanics and artifacts. This will make mod a interesting.

 

[Andrelvis]

Some character data I have for Aztecs and related peoples (historical rulers of other states in the region could be used to fill the Aztec Empire's fictional earlier history):

10000146 = { #Xolotl; Source: Jeffrey R. Parsons, "An Archaeological Evaluation of the Codice Xolotl", 1970, p. 435.
   name = "Xolotl"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl
   culture = nahuatl #Chichimec
   religion = aztec
   1170.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   #led small groups of Chichimecs into the Valley of Mexico, where they settled in the north and center (with their capital being Tenayuca), around 1200 AD
   #described as lord of the Chichimecs; Source: Edward E. Calnek, "The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl", 1973, p. 426.
   1230.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000147 = { #Nopaltzin; Source: Jeffrey R. Parsons, "An Archaeological Evaluation of the Codice Xolotl", 1970, p. 435.
   name = "Nopaltzin"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl
   culture = nahuatl #Chichimec
   religion = aztec
   father = 10000146 #Xolotl
   1185.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 15 years before first mention and 15 years after father's birth
       birth = yes
   }
   #around 1200 AD followed his father in his expedition into the Valley of Mexico
   1245.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 60 years after birth
       death = yes
   }
}

10000148 = { #Acolhua; Source: Edward E. Calnek, "The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl", 1973, p. 424.
   name = "Acolhua"
   dynasty = 10000061 #Acolhua
   culture = nahuatl #Tepanec
   religion = aztec
   1175.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   #led the Tepanecs into the Valley of Mexico "several years" after Xolotl's Chichimecs had settled at Tenayucan, accepting Xolotl as his overlord, and marrying his daughter, Cuetlaxochitzin; he established himself with his people at Azcapotzalco then
   1205.1.1 = { #"several years" after Xolotl's settlement
       add_spouse = 10000149 #Cuetlaxochitzin
   }
   1235.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000149 = { #Cuetlaxochitzin; Source: Edward E. Calnek, "The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl", 1973, p. 424.
   name = "Cuetlaxochitzin"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl
   culture = nahuatl #Chichimec
   religion = aztec
   female = yes
   father = 10000146 #Xolotl
   1175.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   1235.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000154 = { #Quinatzin; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, pp. 231-232.
   name = "Quinatzin"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl (he was a member of Xolotl's line)
   culture = nahuatl #Chichimec, as he was a member of Xolotl's lineage, but perhaps this isn't correct
   religion = aztec
   1297.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 60 years before death
       birth = yes
   }
   1357.1.1 = { #his son Techotlalatzin began his reign in Texcoco in 1357 AD
       death = yes
   }
}

10000155 = { #Papaloxochitl; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, p. 232.
   name = "Papaloxochitl"
   dynasty = 10000064 #Papaloxochitl
   culture = nahuatl #Toltec
   religion = aztec
   female = yes
   1297.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before Techotlalatzin's birth
       birth = yes
   }
   #Toltec noblewoman
   #raised Techotlalatzin (ruler of Texcoco) in Culhuacan
   1357.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 60 years after birth
       death = yes
   }
}

10000156 = { #Coxcox; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, p. 232.
   name = "Coxcox"
   dynasty = 10000065 #Coxcox
   culture = nahuatl #culture undetermined
   religion = aztec
   1323.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   #ruled in Culhuacan and Coatlinchan in 1353 AD
   1383.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000157 = { #Tenahualcatl; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, pp. 232, 234.
   name = "Tenahualcatl"
   dynasty = 10000066 #Tenahualcatl
   culture = nahuatl #Mexitin
   religion = aztec
   1323.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   1353.1.1 = { #led the Mexitin in their flight from Culhuacan to Texcoco in 1353 AD
       employer = 10000154 #Quinatzin
   }
   1383.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000158 = { #Nauhyotl; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, pp. 232, 234.
   name = "Nauhyotl"
   dynasty = 10000067 #Nauhyotl
   culture = nahuatl #Culhuaque
   religion = aztec
   1323.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   1353.1.1 = { #led the Culhuaque in their flight from Culhuacan to Texcoco in 1353 AD
       employer = 10000154 #Quinatzin
   }
   1383.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000159 = { #Tlamina; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, pp. 232, 234.
   name = "Tlamina"
   dynasty = 10000068 #Tlamina
   culture = nahuatl #Huitznahuaque
   religion = aztec
   1323.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   1353.1.1 = { #led the Huitznahuaque in their flight from Culhuacan to Texcoco in 1353 AD
       employer = 10000154 #Quinatzin
   }
   1383.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000160 = { #Achitometl; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, pp. 232, 234.
   name = "Achitometl"
   dynasty = 10000069 #Achitometl
   culture = nahuatl #Tepaneca
   religion = aztec
   1323.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   1353.1.1 = { #led the Tepaneca in their flight from Culhuacan to Texcoco in 1353 AD
       employer = 10000154 #Quinatzin
   }
   1383.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000153 = { #Techotlalatzin; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, p. 231-233, 237-238.
   name = "Techotlalatzin"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl (he was a member of Xolotl's line)
   culture = nahuatl #he was the first member of Xolotl's bloodline to become fluent in Nahuatl, and was raised by a Toltec noblewoman; during his reign, he promoted Nahuatl as his polity's language
   religion = aztec
   father = 10000154 #Quinatzin
   1327.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
       guardian = 10000155 #raised by Papaloxochitl in Culhuacan
   }
   #ruled the city-state of Texcoco from 1357 to 1409 AD
   #Coatlinchan was allied to Techotlalatzin during his reign
   1409.1.1 = { #died in 1409 AD
       death = yes
   }
}

10000161 = { #Ixtilxochitl Ome Tochtli; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, pp. 232, 234, 240.
   name = "Ixtilxochitl Ome Tochtli"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl
   culture = nahuatl
   religion = aztec
   father = 10000153 #Techotlalatzin
   1379.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   #ruled Texcoco during the 1409-1418 AD period
   1418.1.1 = { #reign ended
       death = yes
   }
}

10000150 = { #Tezozomoc; Source: Edward E. Calnek, "The Historical Validity of the Codex Xolotl", 1973, p. 424; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, p. 238.
   name = "Tezozomoc"
   dynasty = 10000061 #Acolhua
   culture = nahuatl #Tepanec
   religion = aztec
   father = 10000148 #Acolhua
   mother = 10000149 #Cuetlaxochitzin
   1205.1.1 = { #unknown, set to the date of parents' marriage
       birth = yes
   }
   #Tepanec ruler
   #was ruling in Azcapotzalco when Techotlalatzin (ruler of Texcoco) died in 1409
   1426.1.1 = { #died in 1426 AD (though he couldn't possibly have died at such a late date if his parents were truly Acolhua and Cuetlaxochitzin!)
       death = yes
   }
}

10000162 = { #Nezahualcoyotl; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, p. 239.
   name = "Nezahualcoyotl"
   dynasty = 10000060 #Xolotl (correct? his predecessors in Texcoco were of this line)
   culture = nahuatl
   religion = aztec
   1400.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   #began to rule in Texcoco in the 1430s
   1460.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years after first mention
       death = yes
   }
}

10000163 = { #Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina; Source: Jerome A. Offner, "A Reassessment of the Extent and Structuring of the Empire of Techotlalatzin, Fourteenth Century Ruler of Texcoco", 1979, p. 239.
   name = "Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina"
   dynasty = 10000070 #Motecuhzoma
   culture = nahuatl
   religion = aztec
   1410.1.1 = { #unknown, set to 30 years before first mention
       birth = yes
   }
   #ruler of Tenochtitlan who established an empire
   #his reign lasted from 1440 to 1469
   1469.1.1 = { #reign ended
       death = yes
   }
}

 

[Brightgalrs]

Shouldn't the off-map title represent the dominate force in the area? The problem otherwise is that you'd be communicating with insignificant (or possibly nonexistent) Nahua rulers at earlier start dates.
So instead, from 769AD to ~900AD you'd have Mayan rulers (and maybe the title would be localized as "Mayan Empire") and from ~900AD onwards you'd have Aztec ones.